|Quoting Stitch (Reply 121):|
The 737RS will almost assuredly be 3+3. What I would like to see is 18.5" wide seats and a 6" wider aisle for a total of 15" extra width over what the current 737 has which is not asking much, I don't believe.
It might be a touch wider, actually. The A320 is 6" wider than the 737 (which has the same fuselage cross-section as the 707, 727, and 757). So I hope they'll aim high and try to beat the A320 cross-section. It can't, of course, get TOO much wider or it would start becoming a widebody. But 8" or 10" would do.
Here's how I figure... The A320 has a fuselage diameter of 3.7 m or 145" (12' 1") internally. Now, note that this is a DIAMETER, not the floor width (which is smaller), but let's just assume they're similar for the sake of discussion. OK
, 25"/60cm for the aisle (as advertised), which leaves 310cm or 120" (10') for six seats. That works out to 20" or ~50 cm per seat. Now it's closer to 18" (~45cm) because the issue that floor width is different from cabin diameter. Boeing can make a new A/C up to 50cm (20") wider or so without forcing itself into adding an extra seat (i.e. no more than 6 seats per row). They could distribute all that width between seats and aisle. Now they won't make it that wide because that's inefficient, but my point is that they have a lot of room to work with before they make it a widebody.
But if I may rant slightly off-topic for a moment: I have flown in almost every type of jet airliner made in the West since the Comet. From the 707 and DC8 to the 777 and 747-400 (never did get on an MD
-11), I have flown in almost every type of narrowbody and widebody in common use, and I've even managed to wind up on a Tu-154 (THAT was interesting, in retrospect...) And do you know what?
A FLIGHT IS
A FRIGGIN' FLIGHT. I cannot tell the difference on the inside between the width of an A320 and a 757. It all feels the same to me. I don't notice the noise difference. The 707 (SCL
-IPA and UIO
-GPA [look 'em up, you'll be amazed where I've been
]) wasn't that much louder than today's planes except at take-off. Decor aside, it was otherwise essentially indistinguishable from flying in a 737-700. Other than the underlying knowledge of what I'm flying and the fact that different planes feel slightly differently when they maneuver, it doesn't matter whether it's a BAe-146 or a 747-400. Because no matter the cabin amenities and no matter how spacious the interior feels, my butt is still strapped into an economy seat at the back of the plane with an obese man sitting next to (and partially on top of) me, unable to get up without significantly inconveniencing my neighbors, and stuck there for hours on end!
So honestly, I don't really care what the cabin is like, and I get off on plane stuff. But the majority of the flying public couldn't tell you what kind of plane took them where they were going. In fact, there are three and only three aspects of a cabin that directly impact my travel experience.
1) Bins large enough for my carry-on's (and I'm the sort who avoids checking)
2) My seat (recline, pitch, width, IFE
3) Air quality.
[4) hot F/A?
So if you're in J or F class, then your flight will be far better than mine, regardless of the cabin design. And if you're one of us poor schmucks back in Y, then no amount of cute LED
light effects and "spacious curvy architecture" makes a 15-hour flight seem significantly more pleasant.
End of rant.